(a)the credibility of statements made by the prosecution or the court more ordered by the police;

B. Criteria for determining the credibility of the testimony

A. In a case where the victim makes a clear and concrete statement from the police about the appearance of the offender at the prosecution or the court, it is a case where memory is made more clearly and concretely than the first time with the passage of the time. Thus, such a statement is not reliable.

(b) the credibility of the testimony should be reasonably compared to the position, interests and contents of the witness, as well as other evidence and determined.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 8108 decided May 26, 198 (Article 308 (1) (Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act), 82Do3217 decided March 8, 1983 (Article 308 (1) (Article 308 (24) of the Criminal Procedure Act) (Article 308 (1)-type 31-type 703, 694 of the Criminal Procedure Act)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Suwon District Court of the first instance (85 Gohap434)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel shall be as follows:

The court below found the defendant guilty of all of the facts charged of this case because he committed the crime under paragraph (1) of this case on February 19, 1985, that the defendant committed the crime under paragraph (1) of this case at the original time. On February 12:00, the court below found him to have committed the crime under paragraph (1) of this case, and found him to have committed the crime under paragraph (2) at the house of non-indicted 1 located in Song-si (detailed number omitted) and committed the crime under paragraph (2) at around March 20, 17: on March 17:00, the defendant's large non-indicted 2 (title omitted) in Ansan-gun's official map, and committed the crime under paragraph (3) at the non-indicted 17:30 on the end of March 19, 1985, the court below found him to have been under the name of the non-indicted 1's farm and the non-indicted 4's own name and again committed the crime under paragraph (3) of this case.

2. The gist of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal is that the court below’s sentence is too unfilled and unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. First, we examine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.

(1) The court below held that it can be recognized that the defendant committed each crime on the basis of the statements in the court below of the court below rendered by the non-indicted 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the victims of the crime in the judgment of the court below, the statements in each of them made by the prosecutor and the assistant judicial police officers, the statements in the court below of the non-indicted 11, the non-indicted 9's mother of the non-indicted 9, the statement in the original court of the court below, and the statement in the non-indicted 12 as to the non-indicted 6, 8, 9, and 10, the defendant appeared at a location from 50 to 80 meters away from the defendant's side behavior and the back behavior of the defendant.

As to this, the Defendant consistently denies the crime by asserting that the police is absent from the scene as stated in the grounds of appeal in the above grounds of appeal, the Defendant denies the crime. Accordingly, I would like to look at each of the facts and evidence before the original judgment.

(2) 원판시 제1항의 범죄사실에 관하여 이에 부합하는 증거로는 피해자 공소외 6의 경찰이래 이 법정에 이르기까지의 진술뿐인바, 동 피해자는 경찰에서는 "자식같은 사람이 자전거를 밀어 달라고 하여 아무런 의심도 하지 않고 그 사람이 저의 손목을 끌고 가므로……약 100미터 가량 과수원 끝나는 곳까지 가니……팬티를 벗기고 웃옷까지 강제로 벗기고……저보고 그 사람위에 올라타라고 하여……도망갔읍니다……(그때 피해당하고 이제 신고하는 이유는) 저의 동네에서 여러명의 부녀자를 상대로 돈을 빼앗은 사람을 잡아놓았다는 연락을 받고……확인을 하여 보니까 그때 그 사람이 틀림없었읍니다.……그 일이 있은 후 음력 정월 열나흘 떡방아를 찧으러 가는 길에 그 젊은 사람이 논뚝에 불을 놓고 있는 것을 보고,…… 1985.7.31. 11:00경 그 사람이 자전거를 타고 동네다리에서 신촌동네로 오는 것을 보았습니다" (수사기록 34, 35면)라고 진술하였고, 검사 앞에서는 "……저는 무서워서 그냥 따라 갔지요, 산아래 4거리길, 하동환 자동차공장 입구길을 지나 칠원동 신작로 쪽으로 약간 가다가 밭을 지나 묘가 있는 곳으로 끌고가……죽인다고 하면서 자기 허리띠를 벗어 저의 얼굴, 목 등을 후려쳤읍니다……자기가 땅에 눕고 저더러 위에 올라타라고 하여……(그때 신고하였는가) 예, 그날 신고하여 경찰관들이 와서 보고 갔습니다…… 1985.7.31.10:00조금넘은 시각에 그 사람이 자전거를 타고…… 아래는 예비군복을 입고……"(수사기록 138면), "1985. 음력 3월 초순 날짜미상 14:00경 칠원유아원 앞길에서 경운기를 끌고 범인이 오는 것을 본 일도 있고" (수사기록 233면)라고 진술하였다. 그런데 피고인을 조사한 평택경찰서 순경 공소외 13의 이 법정에서의 진술에 의하면, 피고인의 주거지 주변의 주민들과 이장, 새마을지도자 등을 상대로 조사하였으나 피고인이 평소에 자전거를 타고 다니는 것을 본 사람이 전혀 없었고, 위 자전거를 찾아내기 위하여 피고인의 주거지, 그 형들이 경영하는 과수원, 목장등 연고지를 조사하였으나 그곳에서 자전거라고는 1대도 발견해내지 못하였으며, 피고인의 주거지에서 예비군복 1벌을 발견하였으나 그 옷은 1985.7.31.을 전후하여 누군가 입은 것으로 볼 수는 없었기 때문에(상당기간 사용되지 않은 상태로 보관되어 있었기 때문에) 압수하지 아니하였다는 것이고(이러한 점은 1985.8.16.자 동인작성의 진술서의 기재에 의하여도 인정할 수 있다), 검사작성의 공소외 2에 대한 진술조서의 기재에 의하면 피고인의 큰형인 공소외 2는 자전거나 오토바이가 없었기 때문에 피고인이 과수원 일을 마치면 평소에 승용차로 피고인의 집까지 태워다 주곤 하였다는 것이어서, 위 피해자 공소외 6이 1985.7.31. 10:00 조금 넘은 시각에 피고인이 자전거를 타고 아래는 예비군복을 입고 가는 것을 보았다는 진술부분은 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵고, 그렇다면 같은 사람이 1985.2.19. 12:00경에 원판시 제1항의 범행을 저질렀다고 하는 동인의 진술부분 역시 이를 그대로 선뜻 믿기는 어렵고, 동인의 위 진술 자체에 의하더라도 원판시 제1항의 범행장소와 범행신고시기에 관한 그의 진술이 일관되지 아니하는 데다가 피고인의 경찰이래 이 법정에 이르기까지의 일관된 진술과, 검사작성의 공소외 14( 공소외 15의 진술기재 포함), 공소외 1, 9(1차)에 대한 각 진술조서의 각 기재내용을 종합하여 보면, 원판시 각 범행이 발생한 송탄시 도원동 부근일대에 1985.2.경부터 피고인이 검거된 같은해 8.1.경까지 사이에 동리부녀자 3명이 강간을 당하는 등 이 사건 범행수법과 비슷한 방법으로 부녀자들이 피해를 당하던중 피고인이 원판시 제4항의 범인으로 지목되어 검거되자, 수명의 피해자들이 경찰서에 찾아와 피고인이 그들의 가해자인지 여부를 관찰하고, 그중 몇명의 피해자들은 피고인이 그들의 가해자가 아니라고 하며 돌아간 사실, 피고인은 충남 홍성군 서부면에서 국민학교를 졸업하고 17세때 상경하여 약 6년간 식당에서 주방일을 하였고, 24세때 다시 고향으로 내려가 둘째형 공소외 16이 경영하는 송탄시 (상세지번 생략) 소재 (명칭 생략)농장에서 기거하며 농장일을 거들고, 또 맏형 공소외 2가 경영하는 경기 평택읍 비전리 소재 목장 및 과수원일도 거들어 주고 있었으며, 펑소 성격은 온순하고, 착실하였고, 현재까지 아무런 전과가 없는 사실, 피고인은 1981년경 경운기에 오른쪽 다리를 다쳐 현재도 보행에 다소의 지장이 있고, 그 사유로 1984년부터는 예비군 훈련이 면제되었으며, 1985년 봄부터 결혼하기 위하여 선을 두차례 보았고, 같은해 8.초순경에도 선을 볼 예정이었던 사실 등을 엿볼 수 있는 바, 위에서 살펴본 바와 같이 원판시 각 범행이 발생한 기간 및 그 장소 일대에서 원판시 각 범행과 같은 수법으로 범행한 다른 범인이 존재한다는 점, 피고인의 평소 성격은 온순하고, 소행은 착실하였으며, 아무런 전과가 없고, 가정환경은 그다지 어렵지 않으며, 원판시 각 범행을 전후하여서는 결혼하려고 선을 보던 중이었고, 오른쪽 다리를 다쳐 보행에 다소의 지장이 있는 점등에 비추어 보면, 더욱 위 피해자 공소외 6의 진술을 믿기 어렵다고 하지 않을 수 없고, 사법경찰리작성의 검증조서의 가재는 피고인이 이를 증거로 함에 동의하지 않고, 그 성립을 인정할 자료가 없어 이를 유죄의 증거로 삼을 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 아무런 증거가 없는 반면에, 오히려 피고인의 일관된 변소와 원심법정에서의 증인 공소외 1의 진술을 모두어 보면, 피고인이 원판시 제1항의 범행을 저질렀다는 1985.2.19. 12:00경에 그날은 구정 전날이라 선물을 하기 위하여 송탄시 (상세지번 생략) 소재 공소외 1의 집에 배 1상자를 전해 주려고 가 있는 사실을 인정할 수도 있으므로, 결국 원판시 제1항의 범죄사실에 관하여는 이를 인정할 증거가 없다고 하겠다.

(3) As evidence corresponding to the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2) above, the victim's non-indicted 7's statement is limited to the victim's statement in the first instance court. The victim's statement prior to the prosecutor's appearance "I ambl and wear clothes on the left hand, I ambl and ambl and ambl and ambl and I ambl. I amblll and I amblish's head on the 5th day of the lower court's statement that I ambl. I do not see that the defendant's statement in the second instance court's second instance court's 7th day after the defendant's statement that I amblish and I amblish in the second instance court's name, and it is hard to find the defendant's statement that I amblish and I amblish in the second instance court's 9th day of the first instance court's statement that I ambl't know about the defendant's body's remaining loss.

(4) As to the facts constituting the crime in paragraph (3) of this Article, the victim's non-indicted 8's statement is limited to the victim's non-indicted 8's statement from the 3th of the original trial. The victim was suffering from frightening on the victim's face, and he reported frightening on the examination color. He stated frighting on the victim's face (80,81 pages) (the investigation record is no more than frighting on the defendant's face). The above witness's statement cannot be found to have been frightened from the 3th of the original trial. The defendant's oral statement cannot be found to have been frightened from the 7th of the original trial because he was frightening on the face of the defendant, and it cannot be found to have been frightened from the 7th of the original trial because he had no other evidence about the defendant's face from the 19th of the original trial.

(5) As to the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (4) above, Nonindicted Party 1’s statement and Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that it was hard for Nonindicted Party 1 to find that the victim was aware of the fact at the time of the above investigation by Nonindicted Party 4, and that Nonindicted Party 1’s statement and the victim’s statement were no longer recorded in Nonindicted Party 1’s name on July 1, 1985 (the victim’s statement that was recorded in Nonindicted Party 1’s name and the victim’s statement that was recorded in Nonindicted Party 1’s name and the Defendant’s statement that was recorded in Nonindicted Party 2’s name and the Defendant’s statement that was recorded in Nonindicted Party 1’s name and the Defendant’s statement that was recorded in Nonindicted Party 3’s whereabouts at the time of the above investigation by Nonindicted Party 4, and that the victim was no longer recorded in Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that was recorded in Nonindicted Party 2’s whereabouts, and that it was hard for the Defendant to find out the Defendant’s identity of the Defendant.

(6) As to the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (5) of this Article, the victim non-indicted 10's statement that conforms to this evidence is limited to the statement made by the police from the time to the present court. According to his statement, the defendant 11:55 on July 31, 1985, 11:5 that he saw his bicycle to a bus stop located adjacent to the bus stop located adjacent to the bus stop located in Songdo-si, Do-si, and 16,000 won in cash, and the defendant is the defendant immediately. However, as seen in the above (2) above, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant was the criminal of the non-indicted 5's statement from the non-indicted 1 to the time of his appearance of the criminal of the above victim, and it is hard to find that the defendant was the criminal of the non-indicted 5's statement by the non-indicted 1, as well as the statement made by the court below on the non-indicted 15's appearance of the defendant's body and body condition of the defendant.

(7) If so, all of the facts charged in this case are deemed to have no proof, and the court below found all of them guilty. In this regard, the defendant's appeal is with merit, and thus, the decision of the court below is omitted, and the decision of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the decision is

B. The summary of the facts charged in this case against the defendant is as follows.

Defendant,

(1) On February 19, 1985, around 12:00, 12:00, the military field of the orchard was induced by the victim, non-indicted 6 (the victim, non-indicted 6 (the age 55), who was holding Nonindicted 23 in Songwon-dong, from the orchard, to pushed the bicycle to the near cemetery, and the victim had been in possession, and forced to have the female do not have sexual intercourse with the victim, and to have the victim escape out of the clothes, and to have the victim do not have the intent to do so.

(2) On March 20, 20, at around 17:20 of the same year, the victim Nonindicted 7 (Woo, 24 years old) was found in the long-distance street of Songdog-si, Song-si, Dogdong-si, and the victim Nonindicted 7 (Woo, 24 years old), discovered a dangerous object, sound the lower part of the female and sound the "hacker Bag" to the effect that it would cause harm to the body of the female if the female refuses to comply with it; and

(3) On March 17:00 of the same year, at the end of the same year, the victim Nonindicted 8 (Min, 17 years old) who was returning to his country after completion of school classes without the reasons such as summering, etc. at the seat of the Dogwon-si, Dogwon-si, and the victim who finds out and finds out the 17 years old and finds out the knick

(4) At July 11:40 of the same year, the victim non-indicted 9 (the victim non-indicted 9 (the 31 year old) was found to be at the time when the victim was found and was in possession of the ship at the time when the victim was scambling the other's money and valuables at the arm's length located in Song-si Dokdong, Song-si, Dokdong-si, and was trying to be at the time when the ship was in possession of the ship. The 850 won in cash and the 4,000 won in market price at the time when the victim was able to resist the victim's head and shoulder, and the scam to the forest, when the scam to the scam to the scam to the scam to the scam to the scam to the scam to the k to the k

(5) On July 31, 31:55 of the same year, around 11:1:15 of the bus stops located adjacent to the bus stops located adjacent to the Donam-dong, Song-si, the victim Nonindicted 10 (the age of 33) was discovered, the victim was able to collect money and valuables, and the female was able to do so, and the female was able to take money and valuables, and the female was able to threaten her to "inducly" and "inducly" and "inducly", the knives of the female were boomed, and the female were 16,000 won in cash, which she possessed.

However, as examined in paragraphs (2) through (6) above, the above facts charged return to the absence of proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the court rendered a verdict of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges KimHun-tae (Presiding Justice)